From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,43ae7f61992b3213 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,faf964ea4531e6af X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: GPL and "free" software Date: 1999/04/27 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 471512556 Distribution: world References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net> <7g2epv$k11$1@netnews.upenn.edu> <7g2l0f$58g$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7g2v6u$a3p$1@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu> X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Trace: /bNDCxVm4MmV0oDHoUjWoyFoU5gzTXJxsKSQNfl7Sr6JqBdy3SXYnV08e3S/4OatuJYmTI+P+uF8!B16H3ZZXaD1z4DfHClbdvdzcQTiKo9ZFOvZXYprVcg2lgzYkI/nLXhhT50ew Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA X-Copies-To: never NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 16:12:29 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Originator: barmar@bbnplanet.com (Barry Margolin) Date: 1999-04-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <7g2v6u$a3p$1@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Lynn Winebarger wrote: > No, C _is_ free to do so. The GPL is granted to everyone - it's a >license on the copyright, not a particular copy. That is C has, in >fact, been granted a license by A, regardless of what B told them, or I don't think so. When C gets the software from B, he also gets the license that B specifies, and he's bound by that license. If B was required to distribute the code under the GPL, but didn't, he violated his license, and wasn't authorized to distribute the software in the first place. But he isn't automatically assumed to have distributed the source with a proper license. The GPL has a clause that says that if B's license is terminated because he violates the GPL's terms, third parties who have received copies under the GPL do not lose their license. But I don't think that applies to this case, since C didn't receive their copy under the GPL. In other words, it says that if C was given the right to make copies, they don't lose them because B has lost them; but if C was never given the right to make copies (because B distributed under his own, more restrictive license) they don't suddenly get them when B's license is terminated. >intends. At least, it has been granted a license to the original work, >and copyrights apply to derivative works as well (not necessarily the >bare modifications, but the derivative work itself, after modification). > Of course, IANAL. NAI (Neither Am I). -- Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.